celerystalksme

hello!

i need some advice. i had a plan in mind...i had this crazy idea to get a custom titanium cyclocross bike...and have it serve as a cyclocross/utility/commuting/touring bike. it was going to run me around $5k-$7k. but...a few people have convinced me that this is a bad idea. i'd end up with a very expensive bike that isn't very good at any one thing, but is sorta good at a bunch of things.

so my new plan is to get two non-custom bikes. a cyclocross bike...and a touring bike. i figure a touring bike will serve as quite a decent commuter and utility bike.

but what's a good touring bike? trek? waterford? bruce gordon? surly? rivendell? seven? affordable is better...but i don't mind spending money if that's what i need to do in order to get a competent bike. as far as material, i've sort of gleened that a touring bike is best served being made off steel.

please advise!!! thank you!!!!!!

nun

You can't go wrong with any of the firms you mention, it all comes down to style and price. Surly will be the most affordable, Seven the most expensive. Bruce Gordon does custom, but his regular bikes are definitely touring specific bikes so not too versatile.If you want something versatile I think the Riv Atlantis is hard to beat, or maybe get a Rambouillet sport tourer and a Legolas cyclocross bike. Waterford also does a nice sport tourer.

celerystalksme

so bruce gordon's touring bike isn't versatile enough to serve as a good commuter and utility bike? it would seem to me that a touring bike would inherently be a good commuter and utility bike. no?

do all the manufacturers i mentioned make a touring bike robust enough to be my companion on a unsupported tour?

robow

Yes

nun

A BG would certainly be a sturdy utility bike, but its not as versatile as the Atlantis or a sport tourer. All the manufacturers you mentioned have strong touring bikes.

celerystalksme

what makes the atlantis more versatile?

MichaelW

Your CX may be more agile as an everyday ride for commuting etc. Most high-end race CX bikes lack threaded eyelets so look for one that has them.
A conventional club touring bike is fine for dual duty. My Bob Jackson is pretty agile and light, as are Waterfords, but the modern brand of specialist expedition bikes are heavier duty, designed for better loadcarrying at the expense of unladen agility.
Having 2 bikes gives you a valuable backup. If your CX developes a fault you can wait for a convenient time to fix it and use your tourer.

InTheRain

More affordable touring bikes... Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30 (my favorite), Surly LHT, Jamis Aurora, Novara Randonee, Fuji touring, Cannondale Touring, Trek 520. All of these bikes should be less than $1500, and several under $1000. They all make for an excellent commuting bicycle as well as a very good touring bike. With $5K-7K I could afford more than two bicycles. I think I could come up with a good touring bike, a cyclocross bike, a road bike, a comfort bike, and a mountain bike. If you've got that kind of $bank$, then by some nice accessories - panniers, racks, helmets, shoes, pedals, lights, clothing.

Niles H.

From what you are saying, I can't help picking up on a tendency to think that only a dedicated touring bike will do certain jobs for you.

A Specialized Tricross Sport will do everything you have mentioned, and do it well, at a reasonable price. (Unless you want a lighter cross bike for racing, or want different geometry for some reason, or have some other need that isn't met by that bike.)

It is quite suitable for both touring and commuting, and as a utility bike.

A truly dedicated touring bike may be more comfortable for very long rides; but even there, the Tricross can come very close. In fact, if carefully fitted and set up, it would be even more comfortable than many touring bikes.

High quality racks properly installed are extremely useful. So are quality panniers.

There are some other cross bikes that could also work well, including some steel ones if you are still set on that material. It is worth mentioning that some of the best and most reliable high-end touring bikes are aluminum alloy. Koga-Miyatas and Cannondales are among them.

Well-made aluminum bikes are just fine, and have some real advantages.

(If you are psychologically bent toward favoring steel, though, that may be worth taking into account, unless you listen to some other voices that are out there. You could ask Koga-Miyata why their engineers chose to go with hardened aluminum. And you could read the sections of the downtheroad.org website in which Tim Travis discusses his experiences with steel and aluminum, and why he chose the latter. He is one of the most experienced touring cyclists out there, and has raced and worked with bicycles for many years. He also researches things thoroughly and thoughtfully, and made a very well informed choice.)

cyccommute 

I'd say all of them but Seven. The rack arrangement on their 'touring' bike is goofy at best. Load it with 30 lb of gear and it's be an interesting ride to say the least!



It's just soooo wrong.

Add Cannondale to the mix as well. The T2 is an excellent touring bike as well as a good all arounder.

Little Darwin

That is just strange...

It almost looks like a custom rack with shorter legs would be necessary to keep the bike from being top heavy.

jbpence

my two cents:

I think a tricross for touring would be a compromise in that the chainstays aren't as long as they might be. Heel strike on the front edge of the rear pannier convinced me of this.

my trek 520 is REALLY a rough ride except when it is loaded down. some tourers are made to be loaded down, in my opinion, the 520 would not make a good daily commuter. for me anyway. its amazing how much better it rides with a heavy load.

cyccommute 

I think they did it that way because of the disc brakes. But a good engineer should have been able to figure out a way around it. Heck, a bad engineer should be able to figure it out...maybe even an English major

robow

Problem solved even with the Seven but I agree with Cycco, WTF were they thinking?

nun

Depending to the tires you put on it the Atlantis can go from a mountain bike to a nice Century bike. The BG is TIG welded from thicker tubing than the Atlantis which is lugged. The thinner tubing of the Atlantis makes if feel quite fast, despite its long wheel base, when you put skinny tires on it. I haven't ridden a BG bicycle
but I'd imagine that you'd notice the heavier tubing, I could be wrong and a stripped down BG might make a good mountian or road bike too. I know that you can use the Atlantis for road, tracks and touring very well.

If you are not going to be using tires bigger than 32 or 35mm I'd go for a sport tourer like the Rambouilet the Waterford or the Co-Motion.

pacificcyclist

People think that you need a special bike for touring, but the people who I met in all my years of touring rarely ride nice bikes. I met a french guy one time on the Queen Charlotte Island (Graham side) riding his french made old mountain bike converted touring and a huge plastic bag bungee corded to the rear rack.
What's also amazing is how resourceful and experienced he was and not that he's a bum or anything, he is a lawyer.
His reasoning was that, there's more to touring than spending all your hard earned dollars on one bike and have nothing left to enjoy on your tours. In fact, people I met on tours with such expensive bikes ($5000 to $7k) are so afraid of getting it stolen that they sometimes carry way too many locks, guard it like it was Fort Knox and don't want to leave it unattended for short hikes, are afraid to venture into rough territory fearing that they're going to ruin the paint and so on and so forth.

What's the fun touring with that?

All those bikes you mentioned are great for touring. I just don't know if they'll give you good value for the money. Some people I know are extremely brand conscious and if that's you, you need to satisfy this urge first.

Personally, I would always go for the cheapest bike I can find that should fit me well first! Steel vs Aluminium debate has been going on for ages, but in my experience, this is all an old myth!
I toured steel before and now with an aluminum hybrid converted to full touring. It's comfortable, it's cheap and it's got great touring geometry even for a 700c bike.

There are 2 differences between a CX bike and a dedicated tourer. First a CX bike has a higher bottom bracket, which gives you a higher center of gravity. A dedicated traditional tourer should have a lower bottom bracket. 2 advantages I see. First is the ease to straddle over the top tube with a full load on. Second is the stability it gives being low to the ground. A second difference between a CX and a tourer is the length of the chain stay. A CX bike is a mainly used to race, so it needs to be nimble. A CX bike usually comes with a 41 to 42cm chain stay, though I've seen some that are much shorter (sizing issues), whereas a dedicated touring bike is a bit longer. My touring bike has a 45cm chainstay. A longer chain stay basically gives the bike a longer wheelbase. You will not have problems even with large feet with your heel hitting the panniers. This puts the load of the panniers and the rear wheel further back which gives you that nice Cadillac ride.
I know of a few people who ride a Kona Sutra and double duty CX as well as a touring bike. It's a steel bike and come in several sizes.

Don't limit your options just between steel and aluminum or a few exotic brands.

staehpj1

A rack made for a 20" wheeled touring bike like the Dahon Arclite maybe the steel version would possibly fit. Really stupid design on the bike.

celerystalksme

alright...i'm sick of trying to make decisions...here are my next three purchases...

CX: Pinarello Alloy Cross (unless the geometry is just too wrong for me via the fitter)
Tour/Commute: Surly Long Haul Trucker (good enough, i don't NEED the Bruce Gordon, Rivendell, or Waterford...but still tempting)
MTB: Titus Moto Lite OR Titus Racer X

done...combined with the bikes i have, hopefully that'll be all i'll need for YEARS! well...unless the money spending bug hits me...

staehpj1

The Windsor Touring is a nice inexpensive option at $599 and pretty much identical to the Fuji Touring as far as I can tell. We rode three of these on the TransAmerica this Summer and were pleased with them.

BigBlueToe

I have to disagree. While I've met plenty of bike tourers on non-dedicated touring bikes, I've also met plenty with bikes that were specifically designed for touring. I think a lot of the people on non-dedicated bikes would be happy to own one. Often they already own a non-tourer and don't want to spend the money for a second bike, or don't want to hassle with selling their non-tourer in order to buy a tourer. However, I remember lots of conversations in hiker/biker sites where people were looking at someone's high-quality touring bike and asking questions, looking at it longingly, etc. I've done it myself plenty of times.

I also think some of the people on non-touring bikes can be explained by the type of person drawn to bicycle touring (I think you'd have to agree that we are not your mainstream types - more like a lunatic fringe.) I started touring when I was pretty young - college age. Back then I couldn't afford much. The adventure, outdoorsy aspects of bike touring really appealed to me, but so did the fact that I could travel really cheaply. My bike was a 10-speed that my parents bought me for getting to and from school. I certainly couldn't afford a new, dedicated touring bike. (I didn't even know they existed when I first started.) I've met lots of kids touring who were in a similar boat - touring on their college rides - mountain bikes and hybrids - or on an entry-level road bike, pulling a trailer.

I've also met several tourers who were far more eccentric types than I, who have been on some of the oddest, seemingly-least-suitable bikes I could imagine. Like I said, lunatic fringe. (I'll bet most of us can recall some very odd characters on very odd bikes whom we've met on our travels.)


I have to agree somewhat. My previous bike was an old pink Nashbar tourer with red blotches of touchup paint all over. It looks hideous! I never worried too much about it getting stolen. Now, with my new LHT, I'll have to worry more. If I had something more pricey, I'd be a nervous wreck!

I went for the cheapest bike that would work well and not make me feel like I settled for something inferior - the Surly LHT. The frame is well designed and built, specifically for touring, and it fits me very nicely. The components I chose are all intended to make each day's ride as pleasant as possible, and to be as durable as possible. I spent a lot for me, but I'm happy. I could have spent far more, but it didn't seem necessary.

As far as steel vs. aluminum goes, I prefer steel, but I don't think it's for any rational reason. I've just always had steel bikes. However, cyccommute rides aluminum and likes it very much, and I've grown to respect his opinions a great deal.

tacomee

If you don't know a lot about bikes and need help getting a higher end bike.....

Look around for a good Cannondale or Trek dealership. Both these companies make a bike for ANY need, from grandma cruiser bikes to Tour de France ready racers. There is nothing, and I mean nothing these conpanies can cover bikewise and even gearwise. Both companies have deep roots in touring bikes. There are cheaper options, but honestly, these companies often offer the best value for buck in the industry. (I don't work for either company, BTW, but I love working on their bikes)

The trick is to find a good bike shop that is willing to work with you getting hooked up with the right bike, size and gear.

I'd have a lot more faith at a good LBS than anything you read here or anywhere else on the web.

robow

Although I will agree on Trek and Cannondale (two of my favs btw)

Let me fill in the rest of the sentence

"The trick is to find a good bike shop" ......that knows anything what so ever about touring and actually has someone on staff that has ever ridden any decent distance at all on a loaded down bike.

Good Luck! You've just eliminated 90% of the shops within driving distance of me. You can glean a tremendous amount of information by the consensus of people on this board because they're out there actually doing it and their experiences are the best teacher, not some technical mumbo jumbo written in a catalog and regurgitated by the salesman.

vik 

Are you planning on racing cyclocross?? If not I'd say the LHT and a mtn bike would pretty much cover all the riding you could want to do - offroad [MTB], dirt/gravel roads [MTB or LHT w/ wide tires], pavement [LHT].

ricohman

This looks like Kona's new touring bike. And The rack looks none to sturdy.
I can't imagine what you could do if that broke off the frame on a long ride.

cyccommute 

What the hell are these people thinking? If you are going to move the rack mounts up the frame to accommodate disc brakes, why not spend a little extra development money and design a rack to fit? Stupid, stupid, stupid!



Just look at this bike! All they did was graft on existing racks and move them up 6"! Don't these idiots ride bikes? It certainly shows that they don't ride touring bikes! I love this bit of text

A touring bike's small details really start to shine at about mile 851 of a 1537 mile journey.
If you've ever ridden on a bike tour, you know what we mean. The devil's in the details when you
spend that much time in the saddle, and your ass, back, and neck will tell you all about it.

This isn't a bike that will shine at anything. As dumb as a bag of hammers.